|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by JENN WOOD
***
True crime podcaster Mandy Matney is asking a South Carolina judge to overturn — or substantially reconsider — the $176,500 contempt sanction he imposed on her after she refused to appear at the designated location for a court-ordered deposition.
Attorneys representing convenience store magnate Greg Parker and several co-defendants are pushing back at Matney’s request, arguing her latest motion distorts the record, raises arguments she previously failed to preserve and overlooks evidence contradicting several of her public claims.
The widening dispute has now expanded beyond whether Matney willfully violated a subpoena. It includes questions about sealed legal bills, Matney’s ability to challenge fees, the distinction between civil and criminal contempt, her ability to pay and whether she can deposit the money with the Hampton County clerk while preserving an appeal.
Matney has raised more than $93,000 from approximately 1,300 donations via a public fundraiser challenging the contempt order, according to an exhibit filed by Parker’s attorneys. Her legal team maintains the extraordinary sanction violate her constitutional rights and effectively punish her as a journalist for raising what they say are legitimate safety concerns.
Parker’s attorneys counter the controversy is not about journalism or protected speech. They say it is about a non-party witness who knowingly refused to comply with a subpoena after a judge repeatedly rejected her efforts to avoid or relocate the deposition.
The ultimate decision rests with S.C. circuit court judge R. Keith Kelly, who issued the contempt order last month.
***
A LONG-RUNNING LEGAL BATTLE
Although Matney is not a party to the underlying lawsuit, she became entangled in the case after Parker’s attorneys sought her testimony during discovery.
The Hampton County lawsuit is a spinoff of wrongful death litigation arising from the February 2019 boat crash that killed 19-year-old Mallory Beach. That lawsuit accused Paul Murdaugh — who was later murdered alongside his mother, Maggie Murdaugh, in June 2021 — of drunkenly driving a boat that crashed into the Archers Creek Bridge near Parris Island, S.C.
The Beach family’s pursuit of financial records from Paul’s father, convicted fraudster and accused killer Alex Murdaugh, helped expose the well-known attorney’s precarious finances.
While the initial wrongful death action has since settled, the spinoff case is based on allegations that confidential materials from the Beach litigation — including graphic postmortem photographs of Mallory Beach — were improperly obtained and distributed as part of an effort to influence public opinion and undermine the Beach family.
Matney was subpoenaed after Parker’s attorneys argued she possessed information relevant to the alleged disclosure of confidential materials. Kelly denied her motion to quash the subpoena and subsequently denied her request to reconsider that ruling.
Her deposition was ultimately scheduled for March 27, 2026, at a Bluffton law office that had appeared on several subpoenas over the preceding five months.
Matney did not appear at that address. Instead, she went to her own attorney’s office nearby and offered to participate from there, including by video. She eventually sat for a seven-hour deposition at the Spartanburg County courthouse on April 8, 2026.
Following three days of hearings, Kelly found Matney’s failure to attend the March 27 deposition at the noticed location was willful and unsupported by a credible excuse.
He ordered her to pay $171,500 in attorneys’ fees and costs, along with a separate $5,000 fine.
***
RELATED | Murdaugh Podcaster in Contempt of Court
***
MATNEY SEEKS RECONSIDERATION
In a lengthy motion (.pdf) filed earlier this month, Matney’s attorneys argued Kelly’s contempt order is legally and constitutionally defective.
Their strongest challenge focused on the legal fees underlying the award.
Matney contends she was ordered to pay $171,500 based on itemized billing statements she was not permitted to examine. Without access to these records, her attorneys argued, she could not determine whether the hours and rates were reasonable, whether multiple firms duplicated work or whether the charges were sufficiently connected to the missed deposition.
“A person cannot challenge the reasonableness of a bill she is forbidden to read,” the motion stated.
Matney is asking Kelly to vacate the fee award or, at minimum, provide her attorneys access to the records, allow them to challenge the charges at a hearing and make more detailed findings supporting any amount ultimately awarded.
Her attorneys also challenged the separate $5,000 fine, arguing it constitutes criminal contempt “in all but name.”
Civil contempt sanctions are generally intended to coerce compliance or compensate an injured party. Criminal contempt is punitive and requires additional constitutional protections — including proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Matney’s attorneys noted the $5,000 is payable to the court and was imposed “to deter similar conduct in the future and to promote respect for the law.” Because Matney had already completed her deposition by the time the fine was imposed, they argued there was nothing left for the court to coerce her into doing.
They also invoked the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against excessive fines, describing the combined $176,500 sanction as grossly disproportionate to a dispute over one deposition location.
“The deposition went forward eleven days later,” the motion states. “No party lost Ms. Matney’s testimony. No trial was delayed. No case-dispositive right was lost.”
Matney’s attorneys further argued:
- The contempt proceeding was improperly initiated without a verified petition or supporting affidavit.
- Matney was compelled to testify during a proceeding that ultimately produced what they characterize as criminal punishment.
- Kelly improperly considered her public commentary when evaluating intent and credibility.
- The court failed to conduct an inquiry into her ability to pay.
- The fee award improperly included litigation extending beyond the expenses directly associated with the missed deposition.
Matney continues to maintain she had an “adequate excuse” for not appearing at the designated location because of safety concerns involving online critic James Seidel.
Her motion asked Kelly to vacate the contempt finding and sanctions. Alternatively, it seeks additional proceedings on the fees and Matney’s financial circumstances.
***
RELATED | Contempt Hearing Set for Murdaugh Podcaster
***
PARKER’S ATTORNEYS PUSH BACK
Parker’s attorneys dispute much of Matney’s account, relying on court records, her public statements and exhibits submitted by her own legal team.
Their response (.pdf) first challenged Matney’s claim that she was unable to examine the documentation supporting the fee award. According to the filing, Matney’s attorneys were copied on a July 9, 2026 email transmitting fee affidavits that disclosed the firms’ rates and hours. The underlying itemized bills were submitted directly to Kelly under seal at the court’s request.
The confidentiality order (.pdf) entered alongside the contempt ruling established a procedure through which Matney and her attorneys could review those records. Parker’s attorneys say no request was made during the following 35 days, although they remain willing to produce the bills with court approval and appropriate confidentiality protections.
That does not fully resolve Matney’s argument that she should have received the records and a formal hearing before the sanction was imposed. It does, however, complicate the public claim that she was categorically prohibited from examining the supporting material.
The defendants raised similar objections to Matney’s claim that Kelly failed to consider her ability to pay. They say her attorneys objected when Parker’s lawyers attempted to question her about her finances during the June 22 hearing. They also point to her subsequent request to deposit the entire $176,500 with the Hampton County clerk through Luna Shark Media LLC.
Matney maintains financial circumstances should be considered when determining whether the sanction is constitutionally excessive. Her proposed deposit, meanwhile, is intended to stop post-judgment interest and preserve her appellate rights — not necessarily establish that she can personally absorb the sanction without hardship. Parker’s attorneys say they would not oppose allowing her to submit financial records if Kelly finds them relevant.
***
***
The response also cited statements by attorney Eric Bland, Matney’s former podcast co-host and now a member of her legal team. During a July 14, 2026 episode of the Cup of Justice podcast, Bland called the amount of the sanction the most extraordinary he had encountered in 38 years of practicing law. However, he acknowledged the contempt finding itself was foreseeable.
“I knew you would be held in contempt,” Bland said, according to a transcript quoted in the filing.
Bland also said reasonable people could disagree about whether Matney acted willfully and acknowledged he could understand the judge’s position.
“Even if I was on (the other) side, I would see you violated a subpoena and can argue that,” he said.
Those remarks are not a formal concession – and do not resolve whether the contempt order was legally sound. They suggest, however, that Bland’s principal objection was the magnitude of the sanction — not the absence of any reasonable basis for finding Matney in contempt.
Parker’s attorneys also submitted Matney’s fundraiser (.pdf) and a series of social media posts (.pdf) as exhibits. As of August 16, 2026 the campaign had raised $93,234 toward its $176,500 goal.
The fundraiser characterizes the order as retaliation against a journalist who refused to enter an unsafe location. It also says Matney “showed up” for the March 27 deposition and ultimately sat for questioning twice.
Matney did report to her attorney’s office in Bluffton that day and offered to testify from there. However, the subpoena required her to appear in person at a different address, and Kelly had not granted her emergency request to relocate the deposition. The court found that appearing elsewhere in Bluffton — or offering to participate remotely — did not satisfy the subpoena.
Other exhibits included posts in which Matney discussed refusing to enter the noticed location, said she would rather go to jail than sit in a room with Parker’s attorneys and later celebrated the confrontation over cake with members of the Beach family’s legal team.
Matney maintained those posts were protected commentary and coping mechanisms — not proof that her safety concerns were fabricated. Kelly acknowledged her right to criticize the attorneys, the proceeding and the court, but concluded her statements could be considered when evaluating whether her refusal to comply was deliberate and whether her explanation was credible.
***
MONEY DEPOSIT DISPUTE
Separate from the reconsideration motion, Matney is asking permission (.pdf) to deposit the full sanction with the clerk while she pursues reconsideration and a possible appeal.
Her attorneys argued the deposit would ensure the money remains available if the order is upheld while stopping post-judgment interest from accumulating.
Parker’s attorneys opposed that request on several grounds. First, they argued Rule 67 of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure applies only to a “party.” Matney is a non-party contemnor.
They also contend Matney cannot use the court registry to suspend the defendants’ statutory right to interest while contesting both liability and the amount owed. The contempt order directed Matney to pay the defendants, they argue, not to place the money in the court registry.
The defense also opposed Matney’s request to stop interest retroactively as of July 27, 2026 — a week before she filed the motion and before she had obtained the court’s permission.
Finally, they questioned whether payment by Luna Shark Media constituted compliance with an order directing Matney personally to pay.
Matney countered that placing the entire judgment in the court’s custody protects everyone involved. If she loses, the money would be available to satisfy the order. If she prevails, the funds could be returned without treating the deposit as a waiver of her appellate rights.
***
WHAT COMES NEXT
Kelly must now decide whether his original contempt ruling overlooked a legal or factual issue warranting reconsideration.
Matney’s challenge raises legitimate questions about access to the detailed billing records, the process used to determine the award and whether a fixed fine payable to the court fits comfortably within a civil contempt proceeding.
At the same time, the newly filed response and exhibits complicate several elements of the narrative advanced publicly by Matney and her supporters.
The record reflects that she was repeatedly ordered to sit for the deposition, did not obtain permission to change its location and deliberately chose not to appear at the address listed in the subpoena. It also indicates her attorneys received the fee affidavits, had a potential avenue to request the sealed billing records and opposed questioning related to her financial circumstances.
Whether those facts defeat Matney’s constitutional and procedural challenges remains for Kelly — and potentially an appellate court — to determine.
For now, the dispute that began with a single deposition has evolved into a larger fight over judicial authority, due process, press freedom and who should bear the six-figure cost of enforcing a court order.
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR …
As a private investigator turned journalist, Jenn Wood brings a unique skill set to FITSNews as its research director. Known for her meticulous sourcing and victim-centered approach, she helps shape the newsroom’s most complex investigative stories while producing the FITSFiles and Cheer Incorporated podcasts. Jenn lives in South Carolina with her family, where her work continues to spotlight truth, accountability, and justice.
***
SOUND OFF…
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
